UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA Vs. GOPA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on a writ application being C.O. No. 12153 (W) of 1984. The Writ petitioner as a student appeared in B.A. II examination (1981-82) with Honours in English from the Scottish Church College, conducted by the Calcutta University, appellant No. l. The result of such examination was published in the Gazette of 25/02/1983 with a remark "withheld". She received the mark-sheet after 3 months from the said college which shows that she obtained in paper Nos. V, VI, VII and VIII the Numbers 52, 30, 42 and 23 respectively totalling 147 which disqualified her from getting Honours. She was dissatisfied with the result shown in the mark-sheet and tried to get permission from the Pro-Vice Chancellor for re-examination of the papers. Having failed in her attempt in obtaining the same, she had to approach the Education Minister and obtain a form for re-examination which was ultimately submitted before the respondent on 27/05/1983. Despite her repeated letters and reminders, she failed to obtain any result of the re-examination. So, she was obliged to file the writ petition and she obtained a direction for immediate re-examination of all her answers scripts within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. She received the result of re-examination which shows that in English VI paper in which she obtained 30 marks was not at all changed and in respect of VIII paper the column of the marks was left blank. Thereupon she again approached the court for a writ of Mandamus for proper examination of the answers scripts and also for writ of Certiorari directing the respondent No. 1 to produce the answer scripts before the court and to declare her result. The court issued a direction accordingly on 29/05/1984. The matter was heard by the court which made certain queries and issued certain directives upon the respondents. But the learned Judge, P. K. Mukherjee, released the matter on the objection raised by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, the Calcutta University and ultimately the matter was heard by the Learned Judge Sri D. K. Basu who by his order dated 5/02/1990 allowed the application with all the prayers made by the writ petitioners.

(2.) The learned Judge in allowing the writ application found that the appellant, University had lost the VI paper and they could not produce the same and as such the university should take a compassionate view. He further found that the writ petitioner should be given the benefit of average marks in paper VI and should get 47 marks instead of 30 which she was originally allotted and one mark should be added in paper VIII and all told 18 marks should be added to the total marks of 147 which she obtained in Part II examination and thus, making it 165 and by adding up these marks to the marks obtained by her in Part I examination which was 155 she should be allowed to get honours. The learned Judge also directed the appellant, university to issue revised marksheet qualifying the writ petitioner to be declared as passed with Honours in English within 4 weeks from the date of the orders. It was also directed that on compliance with the order within 4 weeks, the petitioner would be restrained from initiating any action for damage or compensation against the university. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment and order, appellant-university has come up in appeal before this court.

(3.) The only point that falls for determination in this appeal is if the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge could be sustained in law and in facts. Mr. S. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel representing the appellant, university of Calcutta, has urged that in terms of the resolution adopted by the Syndicate on item No. 30 of the minutes of the meeting dt. 31-3-84/26-4-84 the Vice Chancellor awarded 9 marks to the petitioner in which she originally obtained only 30 marks as such paper (Paper VI.) was lost and that there was no ground for awarding marks to paper VIII in which she obtained only 23 marks as such paper was found and not lost. It was further urged that there was no application from the writ petitioner for scrutiny of her answer script and that she made no representation in respect of the marks obtained by her in papers VI and VIII. According to him, the judgment of the learned single Judge is not based on reasons and it deserves a reversal.